Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Axial Shift pp 199–238Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Principle of Subsidiarity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 274 Accesses

Abstract

After elaborating on the problem of scale in Chaps. 4, 5, and 6, this chapter looks at the principle of subsidiary, which is sometimes also referred to as spheres of sovereignty or hypotaxis. The principle provides a solution to the problem of scale by ensuring that decision-making is grounded as the local scale when possible. One particular strand of subsidiarity gives the city a prominent position as the seat of the local scale (as opposed to the individual). This chapter fleshes out the arguments for subsidiary and the role of the city in this organizational structure.

The term “methodological individualism” was not invented by a philosopher but by a leading economist. A chapter of a book in German published by Joseph Schumpeter [in 1908] is entitled “Der methodologische Individualismus.” Schumpeter … distilled some of the ideas in his 1908 text into an article published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. It is here that the term “methodological individualism” first appears in an academic work in English.

Geoffrey M Hodgson (‘Meaning of Methodological Individualism’ (2007) 14(2) Journal of Economic Methodology 211)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Change history

  • 10 September 2019

    The below corrections have been made after first publication of the volume:

Notes

  1. 1.

    Augusto Zimmermann, ‘Subsidiarity and a Free Society’ (2014) 30(4) Policy 30.

  2. 2.

    Patrick McKinley Brennan, ‘Subsidiarity in the Tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine’ in M Evans and A Zimmerman (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014) 29.

  3. 3.

    See Exodus 18: 13–27. Moses paid attention to his father-in-law’s counsel to choose from among the people competent men to be in charge of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. There are also parallels in Islam. The relevant hadith is: ‘Everyone of you are leaders, and you will be asked to be responsible upon your leadership.’ The Constitution of Madinah seems to be an example of subsidiarity at the city scale.

  4. 4.

    Chantal Millon-Delsol, L’État Subsidiaire: Ingérence et Non-ingérence de l’État, le Principe de Subsidiarité aux Fondements de l’Histoire Européenne (Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 1992) 15.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., 15. For a detailed account of the theological origins of subsidiarity, and for its counterpart in Calvinism, see Kent Van Til, ‘Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made in…?’ (2008) 69(3) Theological Studies 610.

  6. 6.

    R Herzog, ‘Subsidiaritatsprinzip’ in Historiches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 10 (Schwabe, Basel, 1998) 482; cited in Stefan Gosepath, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity’ in Andreas Follesdal and Thomas Pogge (eds) Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions (Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2005) 157, 157.

  7. 7.

    Paul Aligica and Vlad Tarko, ‘Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond’ (2012) 25(2) Governance 237.

  8. 8.

    See also Graham Marshall ‘Nesting, Subsidiarity, and Community-Based Environmental Governance beyond the Local Level’ (2008) 2 (1) International Journal of the Commons 75. Marshall and Ostrom sterilize the political economy aspects of subsidiarity, for example, when it comes to organizing governance around Spinoza’s rendition of sovereignty. See B F Gussen, ‘On the Problem of Scale: Spinozistic Sovereignty as the Logical Foundation of the Constitutional Economics’ (2013) 7(1) Journal of Philosophical Economics (online).

  9. 9.

    P G Carozza, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97(38) The American Journal of International Law 38.

  10. 10.

    For a critique of the principle of subsidiarity in the context of the European Union see Christian Kirchner ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Treaty on European Union: A Critique from a Perspective of Constitutional Economics’ (1998) 6 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 291.

  11. 11.

    Adopted by the popular vote on 28 November 2004, in force since 1 January 2008 (Federal Council Decree of 3 October 2003, Federal Council Decree of 26 January 2005, Federal Council Decree of 7 Nov. 2007—AS 2007 5765 5771; BB1 2002 2291, 2003 6591, 2005 951).

  12. 12.

    On the relationship between subsidiarity and federalism, see also John Wanna et al., Common Cause, Strengthening Australia’s Cooperative Federalism: Final Report to the Council for the Australian Federation (Council for the Australian Federation, 2009).

  13. 13.

    This explains why the US and Australian federal constitutions do not mention local government.

  14. 14.

    See also Aaron Martin, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity and Institutional Predispositions’ (July 2010) CAP Research Group on European Affairs. http://www.cap.lmu.de/download/2010/CAP-WP-Martin.pdf. 5, 8.

  15. 15.

    See Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Competing Conceptions of Subsidiarity’ in James E Fleming and Jacob T Levy (eds), Federalism and Subsidiarity (New York University Press, 2014) 214; Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Survey Article: Subsidiarity’ (1998) 6(2) Journal of Political Philosophy 190; Andreas Føllesdal ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law’ (2013) 2(1) Global Constitutionalism 37.

  16. 16.

    Althusius was part of the Calvinist political thought on liberty (inspired by the ‘city fathers of Geneva’). Calvinist resistance theory seized the language of liberty and framed it in the biblical Exodus narrative. The theory was presented as fighting for freedom from civil and ecclesiastical bondage. Althusius followed this tradition in arguing for popular self-government, emphasizing republican liberty and equality; ‘Althusius saw the absolute liberty of conscience as the natural corollary to the absolute sovereignty of God, a doctrinal staple of Calvinism’: John Witte, Jr. ‘Natural Rights, Popular Sovereignty, and Covenant Politics: Johannes Althusius and the Dutch Revolt and Republic’ (2010) 87 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 565, 592. On this point, refer to John R D Coffey, ‘The language of liberty in Calvinist political thought’ in M van Gelderen and Q Skinner (eds), Freedom and the Construction of Europe (Cambridge University Press, 2013) vol 1, 296–316.

  17. 17.

    For an introduction on consociationalism see Brian Barry, ‘The Consociational Model and its Dangers’ (1975) 3 (4) European Journal of Political Research 393.

  18. 18.

    The phrase methodische Individualismus was coined by Max Weber’s student, Joseph Schumpeter, in 1908. Under methodological individualism, only individuals choose and act. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s conception of sovereignty would be within methodological individualism as his sovereignty is based on the collective of the people (as individuals).

  19. 19.

    Neil MacCormick, Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the ‘European Commonwealth’ (1997) 16(4) Law and Philosophy 331.

  20. 20.

    Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Subsidiarity and the Global Order’ in A Zimmerman and M Evans (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014) 207.

  21. 21.

    B F Gussen, ‘On The Problem of Scale: Spinozistic Sovereignty as the Logical Foundation of the Constitutional Economics’ (2013) 7(1) Journal of Philosophical Economics (online).

  22. 22.

    Føllesdal, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law’ (2013) 2(1) Global Constitutionalism 37.

  23. 23.

    Augusto Zimmermann, Subsidiarity and a Free Society (2014) 30(4) Policy 15.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Michelle Evans, The Use of the Principle of Subsidiarity in the Reformation of Australia’s Federal System of Government (Curtin University, 2012).

  26. 26.

    Christian Kirchner, Competence Catalogues and the Principle of Subsidiarity in a European Constitution (1997) 8 Constitutional Political Economy 71.

  27. 27.

    See Chap. 8.

  28. 28.

    Benjamen F Gussen, ‘The State Is the Fiduciary of the People’ (2015) 3 Public Law 440.

  29. 29.

    Gustav Ermercke, ‘Subsidiarität Und Auxiliarität in Staat Und Kirche’ (1976) 17 Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 81.

  30. 30.

    Solidarity operates ‘horizontally,’ that is to say, it applies within a sphere of sovereignty and between groups at the same organizational scale (e.g. between inferior groups). It requires horizontal coordination among groups. In contrast, subsidiarity is about vertical coordination between groups that belong to different organizational scales.

  31. 31.

    Gustav Ermercke, Ermercke, Gustav, ‘Subsidiarität Und Auxiliarität in Staat Und Kirche’ (1976) 17 Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 81.

  32. 32.

    Evans, The Use of the Principle of Subsidiarity in the Reformation of Australia’s Federal System of Government.

  33. 33.

    Andrew Jordan and Tim Jeppesen, ‘EU Environmental Policy: Adapting to the Principle of Subsidiarity?’ (2000) 10 European Environment 64.

  34. 34.

    B F Gussen, ‘The Evolutionary Economic Implications of Constitutional Designs: Lessons from the Constitutional Morphogenesis of New England and New Zealand’ (2014) 6(2) Perspectives on Federalism E319; B F Gussen, ‘Is Subsidiarity a Conditio Sine Qua Non for Sustainability?’ (2015) 36(4) Policy Studies 384; B F Gussen, ‘On the problem of scale: Hayek, Kohr, Jacobs and the Reinvention of the Political State’ (2013) 24(1) Constitutional Political Economy 19. See also, B F Gussen, Ranking Economic Performance and Efficiency in the Global Market: Emerging Research and Opportunities (IGI Global, 2018).

  35. 35.

    Aurelian Portuese, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Principle of Economic Efficiency’ 17 Columbia Journal of European Law 231 (2010).

  36. 36.

    Pablo Martinez de Anguita, Maria Ángeles Martín, and Abbie Clare, ‘Environmental Subsidiarity as a Guiding Principle for Forestry Governance: Application to Payment for Ecosystem Services and Redd+ Architecture’ (2013) 27(4) Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 617.

  37. 37.

    Dölken, Clemens, ‘Subsidiarität und Institutionenökonomik’ (2013) 54 Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 193.

  38. 38.

    A Føllesdal, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law’ (2013) 2(1) Global Constitutionalism 37.

  39. 39.

    Domènec Melé, ‘Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity in Organisational Forms’ (2005) 60 Journal of Business Ethics 293.

  40. 40.

    In essence, subsidiarity is a principle of reflection rather than a mechanical rule.

  41. 41.

    See Albert Breton, Alberto Cassone, and Angela Fraschini, ‘Decentralization and Subsidiary: Toward a Theoretical Reconciliation’ (1998) 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 21.

  42. 42.

    ‘Le fondement du principe de subsidiarité réside dans la dignité inhérente à la personne humaine car attachée à sa qualité de créature de Dieu façonnée à son image’ Joël-Benoît D’onorio, ‘La Subsidiarité: Analyse d’un Concept’ in Joël-Benoît D’onorio et al. La Subsidiarité: De la théorie à la pratique (TÉQUI, 1995) 10, 13. The right to dignity forms the basis for all human rights law. For an elaboration on this right, refer to Rex D Glensy, ‘The Right to Dignity’ (2011) 43 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 65. Glensy expounds four different meanings to the right to dignity: a positive rights approach, a negative rights approach, a proxy approach, and an expressive approach. Glensy argues that ‘[t]he centrality of dignity in a democratic society cannot be underestimated.’ (at 68). Glensy quotes Paolo G Carozza (at 68) who makes the link between the right to dignity and the principle of subsidiarity. See Paolo G Carozza, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97 The American Journal of International Law 38, 39: ‘When used in its original and most comprehensive sense, subsidiarity has deep affinities at its roots with many of the implicit premises of international human rights norms, including presuppositions about the dignity and freedom of human persons, the importance of their association with others, and the role of the state with respect to smaller social groups as well as individuals.’

  43. 43.

    See B F Gussen, ‘The State is the Fiduciary of the People’ (2015) (3) Public Law 440. This paper introduces an analytical model, ‘the auxilium model,’ to explain the connection between social trust, the fiduciary principle, and subsidiarity. See Chap. 8.

  44. 44.

    See, for example, Kathleen Clark, ‘Do We Have Enough Ethics in Government Yet? An Answer form Fiduciary Theory’ (1996) University of Illinois Law Review 57; Anthony Mason, ‘The Place of Equity and Equitable Remedies in the Contemporary Law World’ (1994) 110 Law Quarterly Review 238, also in Donovan Waters (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, 1993) 4.

  45. 45.

    Vaughan Lowe, ‘The Role of Equity in International Law’ (1988) 12 Australian Yearbook of International Law 54; L S Sealy, ‘Fiduciary Relationships’ (1962) Cambridge Law Journal 69; John Higginbotham (trans.), Cicero on Moral Obligations (Faber & Faber, 1967) bk I, ch. 25, § 85, 69; John Locke, Two Treaties of Government (Legal Classics Library, 1994) bk II, §§ 77–79, 107–109, 119–122, 136, 229–230; Clinton Rossiter (ed), The Federalist Papers (New American Library, 1961) No 46, at 294, and No 65, 397; Martin Loughlin, Legality and Locality (Clarendon Press, 1996) ch 4, 204, 259.

  46. 46.

    P D Finn, ‘The Fiduciary Principle’ in TG Youdan (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, 1989) 1, 27.

  47. 47.

    See B F Gussen, ‘The State is the Fiduciary of the People’ (2015) 3 Public Law 440.

  48. 48.

    See Christine Brown, ‘The Fiduciary Duty of Government: An Alternative Accountability Mechanism or Wishful Thinking?’ (1993) 2 Griffith Law Review 161.

  49. 49.

    See Jürgen G Backhaus, ‘Subsidiarity’ in Jürgen G Backhaus (ed), The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics (Edward Elgar, 1999) 136, 137.

  50. 50.

    Ibid., 137–138.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., 137–138.

  52. 52.

    The principle of sphere sovereignty is the Reformed version of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. See Jonathan Chaplin, ‘Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty: Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Role of the State’ in F P McHugh and S M Natale (eds), Things Old and New: Catholic Social Teaching Revisited (University Press of America, 1993) 175, 175.

  53. 53.

    Leo XIII, ‘Rerum Novarum: Encyclical Letter on Capital and Labor’ (15 May 1891) in Claudia Carlen (ed) 2 The Papal Encyclicals 1878–1903 (Pierian Press, 1990) 241–261, 250–251, para 36.

  54. 54.

    Pius XI, ‘Quadragesimo Anno: Encyclical Letter on Reconstruction of Social Order’ (15 May 1931) in Claudia Carlen (ed), 3 The Papal Encyclicals1903–1939 (Pierian Press, 1990) 421 paras 79–80.

  55. 55.

    For a detailed account of the theological origins of subsidiarity, and for its counterpart in Calvinism, see Kent A Van Til, ‘Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made in…?’ (2008) 69(3) Theological Studies 610.

  56. 56.

    See, for example, Stefan Gosepath, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity’ in Andreas Follesdal and Thomas Pogge (eds), Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions (Springer, 2005) 157, 162; Peter J Floriani, Subsidiarity (Penn Street Productions, 2012) 82–83.

  57. 57.

    Note that subsidiarity is not limited to any particular number of levels of government.

  58. 58.

    This is what came to be known as the doctrine of allegiance.

  59. 59.

    As with many other political concepts, subsidiarity is a complex construct. For a critical review of this concept, see Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Survey Article: Subsidiarity’ (1998) 6(2) Journal of Political Philosophy 190.

  60. 60.

    The use of self-organization in this chapter is analogous to autopoiesis, especially as applied to legal systems. See Niklas Luhmann, Introduction to Systems Theory (Polity Press, 2013); Gunther Teubner, Law as an Autopoietic System (Blackwell Publishers, 1993); Dimitris Michailakis, ‘Law as an Autopoietic System’ (1995) 38(4) Acta Sociologica 323; A Beck, ‘Is Law an Autopoietic System?’ (1994) 14(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 401; Anthony D’Amato, ‘International Law as an Autopoietic System’ in R Wolfrum and V Röben (eds), Developments of International Law in Treaty Making (Springer, 2005); Rakhyun E Kim and Brendan Mackey, ‘International Environmental Law as a Complex Adaptive System’ (2014) 14 International Environmental Agreements 5; Neil Lyons, ‘Autopoiesis: Evolution, Assimilation, and Causation of Normative Closure’ in Tim Kaye (ed), Law, Justice, and Miscommunications: Essays in Applied Legal Philosophy (Vanderplas Publishing, 2011).

  61. 61.

    See Friedrich Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy volumes 1–3 (Routledge, 2013).

  62. 62.

    Nicolis Prigogine, Self-organization in Nonequilibrium Systems (Wiley, 1977).

  63. 63.

    For the classic work on emergent evolution, see Lloyd C Morgan, Emergent Evolution (Williams and Norgate, 1923).

  64. 64.

    See, for example, Gunther Eble, ‘The Complexity of Evolution’ (2001) 6(6) Complexity 24.

  65. 65.

    Eric Bonabeau, Marco Dorigo and Guy Theraulaz, Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems (Oxford University Press, 1999) 9.

  66. 66.

    See also Chap. 6.

  67. 67.

    Francis Heylighen, ‘Complexity and Self-Organization’ in Marcia J Bates and Mary Niles Maack (eds), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (CRC Press, 2nd ed., 2008).

  68. 68.

    As pointed out by an anonymous referee commenting on a previous draft of this chapter, there are considerable ideological differences between Elinor Ostrom and Friedrich Hayek. By discussing Hayek’s work on complexity, the author does not suggest any complementarity between Ostrom’s ‘nesting principle’ and Hayek’s ‘spontaneous order.’ However, an analysis of the differences between Ostrom and Hayek is not necessary for the overall argument. Suffice it to say here that Ostrom shared with Hayek a skepticism of centralized governance structures. Interested readers can consult Derek Wall, The Sustainable Economics of Elinor Ostrom: Commons, Contestation and Craft (Routledge, 2014).

  69. 69.

    Hayek Law, Legislation and Liberty, vol 2, 107.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., vol 1, 35. In this chapter, I use ‘city’ and ‘city-region’ interchangeably. For some background on the concept of ‘city-region,’ see Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, ‘The Rise of the ‘City-Region’ Concept and Its Development Policy Implications’ (2008) 16(8) European Planning Studies 1025.

  71. 71.

    Friedrich Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978) 48.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., 42.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., 46; emphasis in the original.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., 48–49.

  75. 75.

    Also refer to the dialectic between symmetry and symmetry breaking discussed in B F Gussen, ‘On the Problem of Scale: Hayek, Kohr, Jacobs and the Reinvention of the Political State’ (2013) 24(1) Constitutional Political Economy 19.

  76. 76.

    See, for example, W D Hamilton, ‘Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model’ (19 December 1970) 228 Nature 1218. Compare to Alexander William Salter, ‘Sovereignty as Exchange of Political Property Rights’ (2015) 165 (1) Public Choice 79.

  77. 77.

    The emphasis here is on individualism as a methodology or as a road to knowledge, rather than as an ontology about social reality or epistemology about possible knowledge. The methodological emphasis ties into governance as a road to knowledge through decision-making processes producing the legal systems underlying governance structures.

  78. 78.

    See, for example, M Rutherford, Institutions in Economics: The Old and New Institutionalism (Cambridge University Press, 1996). See also J W N Watkins, ‘The Principle of Methodological Individualism’ (1952) 3(10) The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 186.

  79. 79.

    Lars Udehn, ‘The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism’ (2002) 28 Annual Review of Sociology 479, 497.

  80. 80.

    See Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (University of California Press, 1978) and Joseph Schumpeter, ‘On the Concept of Social Value’ (1909) 23(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 213.

  81. 81.

    Steven Lukes, ‘Methodological Individualism Reconsidered’ (1968) 19(2) The British Journal of Sociology 119, 119. See also Lars Udehn, ‘The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism’ (2002) 28 Annual Review of Sociology 479, 481.

  82. 82.

    Jeffrey Alexander, The Micro-Macro Link (University of California Press, 1987).

  83. 83.

    For the various forms of methodological individualism, see also Leon J Goldstein, ‘The Two Theses of Methodological Individualism’ (1958) 9(33) The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1; Lars Udehn, ‘The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism’ (2002) 28 Annual Review of Sociology 479.

  84. 84.

    See Daniel Little, ‘Actor-Centered Sociology and the New Pragmatism’ in Julie Zahle and Finn Collin (eds), Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate (Springer, 2014) 55. This understanding of methodological individualism could be traced back to the Austrian school of economics where individuals are seen as cultural beings living in society. See Lars Udehn, ‘The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism’ (2002) 28 Annual Review of Sociology 479, 487.

  85. 85.

    Joseph Agassi, ‘Methodological Individualism’ (1960) 11(3) The British Journal of Sociology 244, 264.

  86. 86.

    This understanding is closer to Popper and his emphasis on situational logic. See Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1: Plato, vol. 2: Hegel and Marx (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966).

  87. 87.

    See also Lars Udehn, ‘The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism’ (2002) 28 Annual Review of Sociology 479, 494, 496, and 499.

  88. 88.

    See, for example, David Byrne and Gill Callaghan, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art (Routledge, 2014).

  89. 89.

    Joseph Agassi, ‘Methodological Individualism’ (1960) 11(3) The British Journal of Sociology 244, 244.

  90. 90.

    In contrast to Freud who espoused instead an individualist psychologism in explaining social phenomena. See Agassi (1960) 11(3) The British Journal of Sociology 244, 246. See also Leon J Goldstein, ‘The Two Theses of Methodological Individualism’ (1958) 9(33) The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 1, 9.

  91. 91.

    See, for example, Christina List and Kai Spiekermann, ‘Methodological Individualism and Holism in Political Science: A Reconciliation’ (2013) 107(4) American Political Science Review 629; Marian Noga, ‘Methodological Individualism versus Holism in Institutional Economics’ (2011) 3(15) Economics (Ekonomia) 38.

  92. 92.

    A detailed discussion of universitas and societas is provided in Chap. 9.

  93. 93.

    For the similarities and difference between subsidiarity and federalism, see B F Gussen, ‘Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in New Zealand’ (2014) 12(1) New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 123.

  94. 94.

    Chantal Millon-Delsol, L’État Subsidiaire: Ingérence et Non-Ingérence de l’État, le Principe de Subsidiarité aux Fondements de l’histoire Européenne (Presses Universitaires de France, 1992) 15–27.

  95. 95.

    Scot Macdonald and Gunnar Nielsson, ‘Linkages Between the Concepts of “Subsidiarity” and Sovereignty: The New Debate over Allocation of Authority in the European Union’ (Paper presented to the Fourth European Union Studies Association (EUSA) Biennial Conference (1995).

  96. 96.

    Paolo G Carozza, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97(38) The American Journal of International Law 42.

  97. 97.

    Scot Macdonald and Gunnar Nielsson, ‘Linkages Between the Concepts of “Subsidiarity” and Sovereignty: The New Debate over Allocation of Authority in the European Union’ (Paper presented at the Fourth European Union Studies Association (EUSA) Biennial Conference, 1995).

  98. 98.

    John Hopkins Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union (Cavendish Publishing, 2002) 26.

  99. 99.

    P G Carozza, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97(38) The American Journal of International Law 38, 58.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., 44.

  101. 101.

    Chantal Millon-Delsol, L’État Subsidiaire: Ingérence et Non-Ingérence de l’État, le Principe de Subsidiarité aux Fondements de l’histoire Européenne (Presses Universitaires de France, 1992) 8.

  102. 102.

    John Hopkins, Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union (Cavendish Publishing, 2002) 29.

  103. 103.

    Kenichi Ohmae, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of the Regional Economics (HarperCollins, London, 1995). See also Jean-Marie Guéhenno, The End of the Nation-State (University of Minnesota Press, 1995), Daniel Chernilo, A Social Theory of the Nation-State (Routledge, 2007), and David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger, and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999).

  104. 104.

    On glocalization, see, for example, P S Gopalakrishnan, Glocalization: Thinking Global, Acting Local (Icfai University Press, 2008).

  105. 105.

    Kenichi Ohmae, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of the Regional Economics (HarperCollins, 1995) 16.

  106. 106.

    Ibid., 56.

  107. 107.

    Joseph A Camilleri, ‘Rethinking Sovereignty in a Shrinking Fragmented World’ in R B J Walker and Saul H Mendlovitz (eds), Contending sovereignties: Redefining Political Community (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1990) 38.

  108. 108.

    J Agnew and S Corbridge, Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory, and International Political Economy (Routledge, 1995) 89. Cited in Andrew Herod, Scale (Routledge, 2011) 200.

  109. 109.

    Stephen D Krasner, ‘Globalization and Sovereignty’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 34, 34.

  110. 110.

    Eric Helleiner, ‘Sovereignty, Territoriality and the Globalization of Finance’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger, and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 138,149.

  111. 111.

    Steven Lee, ‘A Puzzle of Sovereignty’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 241.

  112. 112.

    Martin Loughlin, ‘Ten Tenets of Sovereignty’ in Neil Walker (ed) Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 79, 107–108. Citing Michel Foucault, Power (New Press, 2000) 324. For Foucault’s views on sovereignty, see Brian C J Singer and Lorna Weir, ‘Politics and Sovereign Power: Considerations on Foucault’ (2006) 9 European Journal of Social Theory 443.

  113. 113.

    Loughlin, Martin Loughlin, ‘Ten Tenets of Sovereignty’ in Neil Walker (ed) Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 79, 108–109.

  114. 114.

    J Allen and A Cochrane, ‘Beyond the Territorial Fix: Regional Assemblages, Politics and Power’ (2007) 41(9) Regional Studies 1161. Cited in Andrew Herod Scale (Routledge, 2011) 201.

  115. 115.

    Andrew Herod Scale (Routledge, 2011) 201–202.

  116. 116.

    John Hopkins, Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union (Cavendish Publishing, 2002).

  117. 117.

    K Morgan, ‘The Polycentric State: New Spaces of Empowerment and Engagement?’ (2007) 41(9) Regional Studies 1237, 1238.

  118. 118.

    Eric Helleiner, ‘Sovereignty, Territoriality and the Globalization of Finance’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger, and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 138.

  119. 119.

    Ibid., 152.

  120. 120.

    See Chaps. 1 and 6.

  121. 121.

    Giovanni Arrighi, ‘Globalization, State Sovereignty, and the “Endless” Accumulation of Capital’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 53.

  122. 122.

    See, for example, Yishai Blank, ‘Federalism, Subsidiarity, and the Role of Local Governments in an Age of Global Multilevel Governance’ (2010) 37(2) Fordham Urban Law Journal 509.

  123. 123.

    Ibid., 55.

  124. 124.

    Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011).

  125. 125.

    Robert Jackson, ‘Sovereignty in World Politics: A Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate Dartmouth, Aldershot, 2006) 3. Published earlier in 1999 47(3) Political Studies 431.

  126. 126.

    Kanishka Jayasuriya, ‘Globalization, Sovereignty, and the Rule of Law: From Political to Economic Constitutionalism?’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate Dartmouth Aldershot 2006) 361, 367.

  127. 127.

    Ibid., 372.

  128. 128.

    Aristotle, The Politics (Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA, 1967) VII, 1326b, 1–26. For a discussion of the divided nature of Aristotle’s sovereignty, see R G Mulgan, ‘Aristotle’s Sovereign’ (1970) 18(4) Political Studies 518.

  129. 129.

    C E Merriam, ‘History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau’ in The Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University (ed), Studies in History Economics and Public Law (Columbia University Press, 1900) 355.

  130. 130.

    For example, art 3 of the 1999 Swiss Constitution.

  131. 131.

    Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, ‘Opting-Out: The Constitutional Economics of Exit’ (2002) 61(1) Journal of Economics and Sociology 123, 146, citing B Smith, ‘The Cognitive Geometry of War’ in P Koller and K Puhl (eds), Current Issues in Political Philosophy (Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna, 1997) 394.

  132. 132.

    Stephen Tierney, ‘Reframing Sovereignty? Sub-State National Societies and Contemporary Challenges to the Nation-State’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate Dartmouth, 2006) 245.

  133. 133.

    Robert Jackson, Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea (Polity Press, 2007) 110.

  134. 134.

    Ibid., 115.

  135. 135.

    Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, ‘Opting-Out: The Constitutional Economics of Exit’ (2002) 61(1) Journal of Economics and Sociology 123, 124.

  136. 136.

    Timothy Mitchell, ‘Fixing the Economy’ (1998) 12(1) Cultural Studies 82, 90.

  137. 137.

    John Hopkins, Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union (Cavendish Publishing, 2002) 8.

  138. 138.

    See Chap. 3.

  139. 139.

    See, for example, James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press, 1962).

  140. 140.

    For a good introduction to this principle in English, see Michelle Evans and Augusto Zimmermann (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014); Alessandro Colombo (ed), Subsidiarity Governance: Theoretical and Empirical Models (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

  141. 141.

    Bhajan Grewal, ‘Economic Perspectives on Federalism’ in A Federalism for the 21st Century (Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA, 2014) 41, 44.

  142. 142.

    Andreas Føllesdal, ‘Subsidiarity and the Global Order’ in Michelle Evans and Augusto Zimmermann (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014) 207, 208.

  143. 143.

    Methodological individualism asserts that explaining sociological phenomena must be anchored in facts about the individual. Methodological collectivism, on the other hand, holds that sociological phenomena are explained by social institutions as real entities with their own complex existence that cannot be reduced to individuals.

  144. 144.

    R Herzog, ‘Subsidiaritatsprinzip’ in Historiches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 10 (Schwabe, Basel, 1998) 482; cited in Stefan Gosepath, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity’ in Andreas Follesdal and Thomas Pogge (eds), Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions (Springer, 2005) 157, 157.

  145. 145.

    Matt Qvortrup, ‘Introduction: Theory, Practice and History’ in Matt Qvortrup (ed), Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) 1, 3–4.

  146. 146.

    The Latin word ‘referendum’ comes from the verb ‘refero’ which in turn means ‘to give up’ (to the people).

  147. 147.

    Graeme Orr, ‘The conduct of Referenda and Plebiscites in Australia: A Legal Perspective’ (2000) 11 Public Law Review 117, 117. The referendum could be seen as an interpretation of subsidiarity in the following terms:

    The taking of Referendum on any question is, so far as it goes, a reversion to the ideals of Greek democracy. The orator is replaced by the writer, the Ecclesia by a few hundred polling-booths; but the voice of the people cries ‘Aye’ or ‘No’ as clearly as if they were gathered together in a market-place or a Senate House. [Robert Randolph Garran, The Coming Commonwealth (Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1897) at 134.]

  148. 148.

    Thomas E Cronin, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Harvard University Press, 1989) 12.

  149. 149.

    S Tierney, Constitutional Referendums: Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation (Oxford University Press, 2012) 1; quoted in Matt Qvortrup, ‘Introduction: Theory, Practice and History’ in Matt Qvortrup (ed), Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) 1, 11.

  150. 150.

    David Altman, Direct Democracy Worldwide (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 65; quoted in Matt Qvortrup (ed), Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) 13.

  151. 151.

    Thomas E Cronin, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Harvard University Press, 1989) 42.

  152. 152.

    There are different strands of methodological individualism. See Lars Udehn, Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning (Routledge, 2001) 347. For our purposes this detail is not essential.

  153. 153.

    The phrase ‘methodische Individualismus’ was coined by Max Weber’s student, Joseph Schumpeter, in his 1908 work Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie (Leipzig, Duncker, & Humblot, 1908). Note however that Schumpeter was more of a methodological pluralist, closer to the Austrian tradition and to Emile Durkheim’s interpretation of social facts as sui generis and therefore irreducible to facts about individuals. See Lars Udehn, Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning (Routledge, 2001) 106 and 134. This Weberian concept suggests that while we talk about states (and other social organizations) as capable of action just like an individual, these collectives must still be treated as the resultants of individual acts, since only individuals can be treated as having a subjectively understandable action. For Weber, ‘action’ refers to the subset of human behavior that is motivated by an intentional state (e.g. coughing is behavior, apologizing afterwards is action). Methodological individualism stands (generally) in opposition to historicism and structural functionalism as determinants of individual behavior. Its use in economic analysis was promoted first by the Austrian school of economics. For a more detailed account, refer to Joseph Heath, ‘Methodological Individualism’ in Edward N Zalta (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University Press, 2011).

  154. 154.

    It follows that parliaments do not make decision but members of parliament do, and this is only a second-best approach as it only uses a sample of the larger body of decisions-makers, namely, the electorate. When it is cost-effective to consult a larger sample (especially due to a low frequency of such consultations), and the issues are of high importance that merits the same, then subsidiarity enshrines a right to referenda.

  155. 155.

    Lars Udehn, Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning (Routledge, 2001) 94.

  156. 156.

    Carl Menger, Problems of Economics and Sociology (University of Illinois Press, 1963) 193–196.

  157. 157.

    Jon Elster, ‘Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory: The Case for Methodological Individualism’ (1982) 11(4) Theory and Society 453, 453. But see also the critique of some versions of methodological individualism in Neil MacCormick, ‘Liberalism, Nationalism and the Post-sovereign State’ (1996) XLIV Political Studies 553, 564, especially footnote 20. See also F A Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (University of Chicago Press, 1948), and Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998) 30–46. Mises suggests that human cooperation, as in a democratic process leading to a legislature, is only a special case of methodological individualism where social action is attained.

  158. 158.

    See Recommendation 1704 ‘Referendums: towards good practices in Europe’ in Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Texts Adopted: 2005 Ordinary Session (Second Part) (Council of Europe Publishing, 2005) 25.

References

  • Agassi, Joseph, ‘Methodological Individualism’ (1960) 11(3) The British Journal of Sociology 244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J and S Corbridge, Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory, and International Political Economy (Routledge, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aligica, Paul and Vlad Tarko, ‘Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond’ (2012) 25(2) Governance 237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, Jeffrey, The Micro-Macro Link (University of California Press, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J and A Cochrane, ‘Beyond the Territorial Fix: Regional Assemblages, Politics and Power’ (2007) 41(9) Regional Studies 1161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, David, Direct Democracy Worldwide (Cambridge University Press, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • de Anguita, Pablo Martinez, Maria Ángeles Martín, and Abbie Clare, ‘Environmental Subsidiarity as a Guiding Principle for Forestry Governance: Application to Payment for Ecosystem Services and Redd+ Architecture’ (2013) 27(4) Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, The Politics (Harvard University Press, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrighi, Giovanni, ‘Globalization, State Sovereignty, and the “Endless” Accumulation of Capital’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, Jürgen G, ‘Subsidiarity’ in Jürgen G Backhaus (ed), The Elgar Companion to Law and Economics (Edward Elgar, 1999) 136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Brian, ‘The Consociational Model and its Dangers’ (1975) 3 (4) European Journal of Political Research 393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A, ‘Is Law an Autopoietic System?’ (1994) 14(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, Yishai, ‘Federalism, Subsidiarity, and the Role of Local Governments in an Age of Global Multilevel Governance’ (2010) 37(2) Fordham Urban Law Journal 509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau, Eric, Marco Dorigo and Guy Theraulaz, Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems (Oxford University Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, Albert, Alberto Cassone and Angela Fraschini, ‘Decentralization and Subsidiary: Toward a Theoretical Reconciliation’ (1998) 19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, Patrick McKinley, ‘Subsidiarity in the Tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine’ in M Evans and A Zimmerman (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014) 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Christine, ‘The Fiduciary Duty of Government: An Alternative Accountability Mechanism or Wishful Thinking?’ (1993) 2 Griffith Law Review 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, James and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy (University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, David and Gill Callaghan, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art (Routledge, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri, Joseph A, ‘Rethinking Sovereignty in a Shrinking Fragmented World’ in R B J Walker and Saul H Mendlovitz (eds), Contending sovereignties: Redefining Political Community (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carozza, P G, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97(38) The American Journal of International Law 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin, Jonathan, ‘Subsidiarity and Sphere Sovereignty: Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Role of the State’ in FP McHugh and SM Natale (eds), Things Old and New: Catholic Social Teaching Revisited (University Press of America, 1993) 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chernilo, Daniel, A Social Theory of The Nation-State (Routledge, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Kathleen, ‘Do We Have Enough Ethics in Government Yet? An Answer form Fiduciary Theory’ (1996) University of Illinois Law Review 57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, John R D, ‘The language of liberty in Calvinist political thought’ in M van Gelderen and Q Skinner (eds), Freedom and the Construction of Europe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013) vol 1, 296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, Alessandro (ed), Subsidiarity Governance: Theoretical and Empirical Models (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, Thomas E, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (Harvard University Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato, Anthony, ‘International Law as an Autopoietic System’ in R Wolfrum and V Röben (eds), Developments of International Law in Treaty Making (Springer, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • D’onorio, Joël-Benoît, ‘La Subsidiarité: Analyse d’un Concept’ in Joël-Benoît D’onorio et al La Subsidiarité: De la théorie à la pratique (TÉQUI, 1995) 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dölken, Clemens, ‘Subsidiarität und Institutionenökonomik’ (2013) 54 Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eble, Gunther, ‘The Complexity of Evolution’ (2001) 6(6) Complexity 24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon, ‘Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory: The Case for Methodological Individualism’ (1982) 11(4) Theory and Society 453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ermercke, Gustav, ‘Subsidiarität Und Auxiliarität in Staat Und Kirche’ (1976) 17 Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Michelle, The Use of the Principle of Subsidiarity in the Reformation of Australia’s Federal System of Government (Curtin University, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Michelle and Augusto Zimmermann (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, P D, ‘The Fiduciary Principle’ in TG Youdan (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, 1989) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floriani, Peter J, Subsidiarity (Penn Street Productions, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, Michel, Power (New Press, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Føllesdal, Andreas, ‘Survey Article: Subsidiarity’ (1998) 6(2) Journal of Political Philosophy 190.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law’ (2013) 2(1) Global Constitutionalism 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘Competing Conceptions of Subsidiarity’ in James E Flemming and Jacob T Levy (eds), Federalism and Subsidiarity (New York University Press, 2014a) 214.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘Subsidiarity and the Global Order’ in Michelle Evans and Augusto Zimmermann (eds), Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity (Springer, 2014b) 207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garran, Robert Randolph, The Coming Commonwealth (Angus and Robertson, 1897).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glensy, Rex D, ‘The Right to Dignity’ (2011) 43 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, Leon J, ‘The Two Theses of Methodological Individualism’ (1958) 9(33) The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalakrishnan, P S, Glocalization: thinking global, acting local (Icfai University Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosepath, Stefan, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity’ in Andreas Føllesdal and Thomas Pogge (eds) Real World Justice: Grounds, Principles, Human Rights, and Social Institutions (Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2005) 157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, Bhajan, ‘Economic Perspectives on Federalism’ in A Federalism for the 21st Century (Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), 2014) 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guéhenno, Jean-Marie, The End of the Nation-State (University of Minnesota Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gussen, B F, ‘On the Problem of Scale: Hayek, Kohr, Jacobs and the Reinvention of the Political State’ (2013a) 24(1) Constitutional Political Economy 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘On the problem of scale: spinozistic sovereignty as the logical foundation of the constitutional economics’ (2013b) 7(1) Journal of Philosophical Economics (online).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘Subsidiarity as a constitutional principle in New Zealand’ (2014a) 12(1) New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘The Evolutionary Economic Implications of Constitutional Designs: Lessons from the Constitutional Morphogenesis of New England and New Zealand’ (2014b) 6(2) Perspectives on Federalism E319.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘The State is the Fiduciary of the People’ (2015a) 3 Public Law 440.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, Is Subsidiarity a Conditio Sine Qua Non for Sustainability?, (2015b) 36(4) Policy Studies 384.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, Ranking Economic Performance and Efficiency in the Global Market: Emerging Research and Opportunities (IGI Global, 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W D, ‘Selfish and Spiteful Behaviour in an Evolutionary Model’ (19 December 1970) 228 Nature 1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F A, Individualism and Economic Order (University of Chicago Press, 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy volumes 1 to 3 (Routledge, 2013 [1973, 1976, 1979]).

    Google Scholar 

  • Helleiner, Eric, ‘Sovereignty, Territoriality and the Globalization of Finance’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger, and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 138–157, 149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herod, Andrew, Scale (Routledge, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, R, ‘Subsidiaritatsprinzip’ in Historiches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 10 (Schwabe, Basel, 1998) 482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heylighen, Francis, ‘Complexity and Self-Organization’ in Marcia J Bates and Mary Niles Maack (eds), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (CRC Press, 2nd ed, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, John (trans), Cicero on Moral Obligations (Faber & Faber, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan (Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, Geoffrey M, ‘Meaning of Methodological Individualism’ (2007) 14(2) Journal of Economic Methodology 211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, John, Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union (Cavendish Publishing, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Robert, ‘Sovereignty in World Politics: A Glance at the Conceptual and Historical Landscape’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate Dartmouth, Aldershot 2006) 3. Published earlier in 1999 47(3) Political Studies 431.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, Sovereignty: The Evolution of an Idea (Polity Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayasuriya, Kanishka, ‘Globalization, Sovereignty, and the Rule of Law: From Political to Economic Constitutionalism?’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, Andrew and Tim Jeppesen, ‘EU Environmental Policy: Adapting to the Principle of Subsidiarity?’ (2000) 10 European Environment 64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Rakhyun E and Brendan Mackey, ‘International Environmental Law as a Complex Adaptive System’ (2014) 14 International Environmental Agreements 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchner, Christian, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Treaty on European Union: A Critique from a Perspective of Constitutional Economics’ (1998) 6 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen D, ‘Globalization and Sovereignty’ in David A Smith, Dorothy J Solinger and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999) 34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurrild-Klitgaard, Peter, ‘Opting-Out: The Constitutional Economics of Exit’ (2002) 61(1) Journal of Economics and Sociology 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Steven, ‘A Puzzle of Sovereignty’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leo XIII, ‘Rerum Novarum: Encyclical Letter on Capital and Labor’ (15 May 1891) in Claudia Carlen (ed) 2 The Papal Encyclicals 1878–1903 (Pierian Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • List, Christina and Kai Spiekermann, ‘Methodological Individualism and Holism in Political Science: A Reconciliation’ (2013) 107(4) American Political Science Review 629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, Daniel, ‘Actor-Cantered Sociology and the New Pragmatism’ in Julie Zahle and Finn Collin (eds), Rethinking the Individualism-Holism Debate (Springer, 2014) 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John, Two Treaties of Government (Legal Classics Library, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughlin, Martin, Legality and Locality (Clarendon Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘Ten Tenets of Sovereignty’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, Vaughan, ‘The Role of Equity in International Law’ (1988) 12 Australian Yearbook of International Law 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, Steven, ‘Methodological Individualism Reconsidered’ (1968) 19(2) The British Journal of Sociology 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas, Introduction to Systems Theory (Polity Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, Neil, ‘Autopoiesis: Evolution, Assimilation, and Causation of Normative Closure’ in Tim Kaye (ed), Law, Justice, and Miscommunications: Essays in Applied Legal Philosophy (Vanderplas Publishing, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, Neil, ‘Liberalism, Nationalism and the Post-sovereign State’ (1996) 44 Political Studies 553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘Democracy, Subsidiarity, and Citizenship in the “European Commonwealth”’ (1997) 16(4) Law and Philosophy 331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, Scot and Gunnar Nielsson, ‘Linkages Between the Concepts of “Subsidiarity” and Sovereignty: The New Debate over Allocation of Authority in the European Union’ (Paper presented at the Fourth European Union Studies Association (EUSA) Biennial Conference, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Graham, ‘Nesting, Subsidiarity, and Community-Based Environmental Governance beyond the Local Level’ (2008) 2 (1) International Journal of the Commons 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Aaron, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity and Institutional Predispositions’ (July 2010) CAP Research Group on European Affairs. http://www.cap.lmu.de/download/2010/CAP-WP-Martin.pdf.

  • Mason, Anthony, ‘The Place of Equity and Equitable Remedies in the Contemporary Law World’ (1994) 110 Law Quarterly Review 238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, Domènec, ‘Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity in Organisational Forms’ (2005) 60 Journal of Business Ethics 293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menger, Carl, Problems of Economics and Sociology (University of Illinois Press, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, C E, ‘History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau’ in The Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University (ed), Studies in History Economics and Public Law (Columbia University Press, 1900).

    Google Scholar 

  • Michailakis, Dimitris, ‘Law as an Autopoietic System’ (1995) 38(4) Acta Sociologica 323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millon-Delsol, Chantal, L’État Subsidiaire: Ingérence et Non-ingérence de l’État, Le Principe de Subsidiarité aux Fondements de l’Histoire Européenne (Presses Universitaires de France, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mises, Ludwig, Human Action (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Timothy, ‘Fixing the Economy’ (1998) 12(1) Cultural Studies 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Lloyd C, Emergent Evolution (Williams and Norgate, 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R G, ‘Aristotle’s Sovereign’ (1970) 18(4) Political Studies 518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noga, Marian, ‘Methodological Individualism versus Holism in Institutional Economics’ (2011) 3(15) Economics (Ekonomia) 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohmae, Kenichi, The End of the Nation State: The Rise of the Regional Economics (HarperCollins, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, Graeme, ‘The conduct of Referenda and Plebiscites in Australia: A Legal Perspective’ (2000) 11 Public Law Review 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, Nicolis, Self-organization in Nonequilibrium Systems (Wiley, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pius XI, ‘Quadragesimo Anno: Encyclical Letter on Reconstruction of Social Order’ (15 May 1931) in Claudia Carlen (ed), 3 The Papal Encyclicals 1903–1939 (Pierian Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Portuese, Aurelian, ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Principle of Economic Efficiency’ 17 Columbia Journal of European Law 231 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol 1: Plato, vol 2: Hegel and Marx (Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1945] 1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, Matt, ‘Introduction: Theory, Practice and History’ in Matt Qvortrup (ed), Referendums Around the World: The Continued Growth of Direct Democracy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, ‘The Rise of the ‘City-Region’ Concept and Its Development Policy Implications’ (2008) 16(8) European Planning Studies 1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, Clinton (ed), The Federalist Papers (Penguin, 1961).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, M, Institutions in Economics: The Old and New Institutionalism (Cambridge university Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, Joseph, Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie (Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot, 1908).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘On the Concept of Social Value’ (1909) 23(2) The Quarterly Journal of Economics 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sealy, L S, ‘Fiduciary Relationships’ (1962) Cambridge Law Journal 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, Brian C J and Lorna Weir, ‘Politics and Sovereign Power: Considerations on Foucault’ (2006) 9 European Journal of Social Theory 443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, Alexander William, ‘Sovereignty as Exchange of Political Property Rights’ (2015) 165(1) Public Choice 79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, David A, Dorothy J Solinger and Steven C Topik (eds), States and Sovereignty in the Global Economy (Routledge, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, Gunther, Law as an Autopoietic System (Blackwell Publishers, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, Stephen, ‘Reframing Sovereignty? Sub-State National Societies and Contemporary Challenges to the Nation-State’ in Neil Walker (ed), Relocating Sovereignty (Ashgate, 2006) 245.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, Constitutional Referendums: Theory and Practice of Republican Deliberation (Oxford University Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Udehn, Lars, Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning (Routledge, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ‘The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism’ (2002) 28 Annual Review of Sociology 479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Til, Kent, ‘Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made in …? ‘ (2008) 69(3) Theological Studies 610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, Derek, The Sustainable Economics of Elinor Ostrom: Commons, Contestation and Craft (Routledge, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanna, John, et al, Common Cause, Strengthening Australia’s Cooperative Federalism: Final Report to the Council for the Australian Federation (Council for the Australian Federation, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, Donovan (ed), Equity, Fiduciaries and Trusts (Carswell, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J W N, ‘The Principle of Methodological Individualism’ (1952) 3(10) The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (University of California Press, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte, John, Jr, ‘Natural Rights, Popular Sovereignty, and Covenant Politics: Johannes Althusius and the Dutch Revolt and Republic’ (2010) 87 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalta, Edward N (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University Press, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Augusto, ‘Subsidiarity and a Free Society’ (2014) 30(4) Policy 30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Benjamen Gussen

Authors
  1. Benjamen Gussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamen Gussen .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gussen, B. (2019). The Principle of Subsidiarity. In: Axial Shift. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6950-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6950-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6949-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6950-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation